In a
recent article on World Net Daily,[1] it was reported that Congressman
Phil Hare (D – IL) admitted on video that he did not care whether
or not the U.S. Constitution granted authority to the federal government
to execute the recently-passed Health Care law. He openly acknowledged
that he does not even know where the constitution grants the authority.
Hare tells those constituents asking him questions on the matter, "I
don't worry about the Constitution on this to be honest.”[2] That
Congress does not worry about the limits of the Constitution is obvious
by their actions. Here, we see the subjective intent and motive to ignore
the constitution that they swear an oath to uphold.

For
many generations the nature, character of form of government as operated
under the federal constitution have been completely annihilated from their
original ratification by the states from 1787 to 1791. Despite each federal
and state politician swearing an oath to uphold the Supreme Law of the
Land (which does not equate to federal laws, by the way), our laws and
system of government today literally contradicts what it was intended
to be when the constitution was ratified.

The
reasons for this contradiction are many: lack of (true) education and
a host of disinformation; indifference to the principles of the Laws of
Nature and Nature’s God; the evils and corruptions of politicians
who prefer the luxuries of power, money and sex over free society and
government; the dearth of diligence by the states to check the federal
government; bad faith has replaced good faith in following the limits
placed upon government; and so on. In short, for politicians, the problem
can be summed up this way: their oath to uphold the Supreme Law of the
Land means nothing.

The
oath of office is significant and telling because of its intended meaning,
application and consequence. Consider what an oath is and compare what
it means today.

The
oath of office comes from the notion first that there is a Creator God
who implements justice on earth and in life hereafter: he rewards good
and punishes bad. It comes from the notion that mankind has a tendency
to be evil and will use power at the expense of the people’s and
individuals’ freedom and rights. It comes from the notion that constitutions,
elections and even threats of revolts do not adequately prevent politicians
from abusing power. Therefore, an oath of office is required to ensure
political leaders will bind themselves to the Supreme Law of the Land,
which is the law that comports to the natural and constitutional limitations
placed upon government by God and the people.

More
specifically, an oath is a solemn promise made by the politician to God
Almighty, where if the politician breaks his promise, he is calling upon
himself the wrath of God’s punishment upon his life in whatever
proportion God feels is justified. Samuel Pufendorf (enlightenment philosopher
and jurists) writes on the matter and expresses it as follows:

“If…an
oath has been given…the man captured is bound to fulfill his promises;
not because the brigand wins a peculiar right therefrom, since…oaths
add nothing further to the substance, as it were, of the obligation…as
concerns the man to whom the promise is made, and no special right arises
from them in a human court of law…; but because of the reverence
due the DIVINE SPIRIT, whose mercy he has renounced unless he keeps his
promise. And it is better to suffer loss of money than to have treated
the DIVINE MAJESTY with a certain lack of respect.”[3]

Pufendorf
adds to the subject:

“[The]
purpose [of an oath] is, that men should be more firmly bound to…fulfill
their promises out of FEAR OF THE DIVINE SPIRIT, omnipotent and omniscient,
whose wrath, if they should knowingly practice deceit with an oath, they
are calling upon themselves, where otherwise the fear of others appeared
to be a less effective bond of faith, as they hoped to be able either
to escape their power or else to avoid detection.”[4]

As described,
the oath of office is not even a matter between politician and society:
it is between politician and God, where the politician openly and publically
binds himself to a promise and willingly accepts the wrath of God upon
his life for breaking that oath.

To this
end,

“the
fear of Deity adds finally the last element of strength to human good
faith. From this fact also it is apparent…that atheism should not
grow strong. For, if you have removed God from the function of administering
justice, all the efficacy of these pacts, to the observance of which one
of the contracting parties is not able to compel the other by force, will
immediately expire, and every one will measure justice by his own particular
advantage.”[5]

It is
no wonder that federal politicians ignore their oath of office: they have
no fear of God before their eyes, and they much more have no fear of the
people. How can you expect a person to fear people if they do not fear
God? How can you expect the federal government to uphold their oath when
the only fear they have is a U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the
law they passed two years or four years ago was unconstitutional?

Advertisement

How
do you expect those God-rejecting vultures in Washington D.C. to refrain
from power usurpation when the only power allegedly capable of resistance
comes from a source so remote from application that they can scarcely
comprehend its effect? How do you expect a government possessing bad faith
to check and balance its own actions when the second amendment’s
intended application against that usurping federal government is comical
and when the state governments have shirked their role in this regard
for generations?

As has
been apparent for many years, federal (and many state) politicians could
not care less about the solemn oath of office. So, besides the obvious
corruption of laws and politics, what is the final and natural effect
of this evil? The end result is that the very foundation of society forming
government is destroyed, giving rise for those people to form a new government.

Consider
what the foundational purpose is of a people’s forming society and
subsequently, government (note: there is a huge difference between society
and government, despite the actions of our socialists in D.C.). A complete
education will reveal that a body of people will enter into society for
their utility first, and then they subsequently form a government to secure
their freedom and rights so each person may enjoy his or her pursuits
of happiness without unjust interference. This entire operation among
that body of people gathered together for self-governance (called a body-politic)
is based upon the presumption of many things, one of the most important
of which is “good faith” within government.

Those
in government must possess good faith because government has the force
of law and the power to trample freedom through taxation, regulation and
punishment. Good faith in government demands that those who hold its power
possess both the subjective and objective intent of carrying out the purposes
of that society and the fundamental laws formed by that body-politic or
bodies-politic in form of a constitution. Where those politicians do not
possess the necessary intent as such to preserve freedom, there no longer
exists the good faith element of government. The consequence: tyranny
and oppression.

Pufendorf
recognizes that without this presumption of good faith, that society or
societies would not even have come together to form that government and
would not have even gathered together for purpose of utility. He observes,

“[I]f
that fear [of others breaching their obligations under natural law and
pact] should prevail over good faith, no civil society could be formed
or preserved, but life would have to be spent in perpetual warfare, and
therefore in the status of brute beasts. For those…who unite to
form a state ought to have good faith among themselves, because they,
indeed, wish to procure public welfare, the rest of men to obey it. Otherwise
they would never coalesce into one body, unless those who subject themselves
to the other party should compose themselves to obey, content with the
pledge of good faith which has been given by the one who is to bear authority.”[6]

Shortly
put, where the element of good faith is absent in those who possess governing
authority, government’s very purpose no longer exists and those
in that society revert back to a state of nature, possessing the natural
power to reinstitute new forms of government that they deem best to preserve
freedom and rights. To this end, the Declaration of Independence of 1776
was executed by each body-politic in America: the thirteen colonies, acting
independently for each society, creating independent and sovereign states.

If you
think Congressman Phil Hare and his like are the only federal politicians
who do not possess the required element of good faith, you are mistaken.
If you think that only those politicians who openly express, as Hare did,
that they do not care about the constitution, you are mistaken. Whether
openly admitted or not, the conclusion is the same: for generations, federal
politicians’ (both Democrat and Republican) actions reveal their
objective and subjective intent of ignoring and usurping the U.S. Constitution’s
limits. (Sadly and sickening enough, we put them there!)

Today,
the people who have form individual societies of states (bodies-politic)
must re-evaluate the very purpose of their forming the federal government.
The political sciences (revealed through the nature of man and the creation
of God) which generate the formula of freedom must be once again examined
and applied by enlightened freedomists of our generation. Tyrannical empires
of the past have fallen for their ignorance and contradiction of these
principles, proving that governments are not eternal, nor should they
be. Thankfully, freedom’s principles never die, as freedom spirit
cries out eternally for all those who will listen and act accordingly.

When
a government shows its design of reducing us to mere despotism, it is
our right and our duty to take the natural measures God has granted to
us to secure our freedom--union of fifty states existing or not. Union
of fifty states is not the goal. Freedom is the goal: freedom for us now
and freedom for our posterity later.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

So,
let us see whether Congress impeaches those traitors in Washington D.C.
who openly ignore the constitution they swore to uphold. If they do not,
we can only presume that they are complicit with that most egregious breach
of their solemn oath to God; and more than that, they agree with and participate
in that evil.

Timothy
Baldwin is an attorney from Pensacola, FL, who received his bachelor of
arts degree at the University of West Florida and who graduated from Cumberland
School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. After having received
his Juris Doctorate degree from Cumberland School of Law, Baldwin became
a Felony Prosecutor in the 1st District of Florida. In 2006, he started
his own law practice, where he created specialized legal services entirely
for property management companies.

Like his father,
Chuck Baldwin, Timothy Baldwin is an astute writer of cutting-edge political
articles, which he posts on his website, www.libertydefenseleague.com.
Baldwin is also the author of the soon-to-be-released book entitled, Freedom
For A Change, in which Baldwin expounds the fundamental principles
of freedom believed by America’s forefathers and gives inspiring
and intelligent application of those principles to our current political
and cultural standing.

Baldwin is involved
in important state sovereignty movement issues, including being co-counsel
in the federal litigation in Montana involving the Firearms Freedom Act,
the likes of which is undoubtedly a pivotal and essential ingredient to
restoring freedom and federalism in the states of America. Baldwin is
also a member of freedom organizations, such as The Oath-Keepers, and
believes that the times require all freedom-loving Americans to educate,
invigorate and activate the principles of freedom within the States of
America for ourselves and our posterity.

For many generations
the nature, character of form of government as operated under the federal
constitution have been completely annihilated from their original ratification
by the states from 1787 to 1791.